Page 60 of 155
[* Du Cange, in verbo Crux.]
[** Spel in verbo Ordealium. Parker, p. 155.
Lindenbrog. p, 1299]
[*** LL. In, sect. 77.]
[**** Sometimes the person accused walked barefoot
over a red hot iron]
[****** Spel in verbo Corsned. Parker, p. 156.
Text. Roffens. p. 33.]
[******* On the death of an alderman, a greater or
lesser thane, there was a payment made to the king of his
best arms; and this was called his heriot; but this was not
of the nature of a relief. See Spel. of Tenures, p. 2. The
value of this heriot was fixed by Canute’s laws, sect. 69.]
[******** Bracton de Acqu. Rer. Domin. ii. cap.
16. See more fully Spel of Feus and Tenures, and Q aigius de
Jure Feud, lib. i. dieg.]
The trouble and expense of defending the state in England lay equally upon all the land; and it was usual for every five hides to equip a man for the service. The “trinoda necessitas,” as it was called, or the burden of military expeditions, of repairing highways, and of building and supporting bridges, was inseparable from landed property, even though it belonged to the church or monasteries, unless exempted by a particular charter.[*] The ceorles, or husbandmen, were provided with arms, and were obliged to take their turn in military duty.[**] There were computed to be two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England;[***] consequently the ordinary military force of the kingdom consisted of forty-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty men; though, no doubt, on extraordinary occasions, a greater number might be assembled. The king and nobility had some military tenants, who were called “sithcun-men.”[****] And there were some lands annexed to the office of aldermen, and to other offices; but these probably were not of great extent, and were possessed only during pleasure, as in the commencement of the feudal law in other countries of Europe.
The revenue of the king seems to have consisted chiefly in his demesnes, which were large; and in the tolls and imposts which he probably levied at discretion on the boroughs and seaports that lay within his demesnes. He could not alienate any part of the crown lands, even to religious uses, without the consent of the states.[*****] Danegelt was a land-tax of a shilling a hide, imposed by the states,[******] either for payment of the sums exacted by the Danes, or for putting the kingdom in a posture of defence against those invaders.[*******]
The Saxon pound, as likewise that which was coined for some centuries after the conquest, was near three times the weight of our present money. There were forty-eight shillings in the pound, and five pence in a shilling;[********] consequently a Saxon shilling was near a fifth heavier than ours, and a Saxon penny near three times as heavy.[*********]
[* Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 256.]
[** In, sect. 51.]
[*** Spel. of Feus and Tenures, p. 17.]
[**** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 195.]
[****** Chron. Sax. p. 128.]
[******* LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 12.]
[******** LL. lf. sect. 40.]
[********* Fleetwood’s Chron. Pretiosum, p. 27 28, etc.]
As to the value of money in those times, compared to commodities, there are some though not very certain, means of computation. A sheep, of the laws of Athelstan, was estimated at a shilling; that is, fifteen pence of our money. The fleece was two fifths of the value of the whole sheep,[*] much above its present estimation; and the reason probably was, that the Saxons, like the ancients, were little acquainted with any clothing but what was made of wool. Silk and cotton were quite unknown: linen was not much used. An ox was computed at six times the value of a sheep; a cow at four.[**] If we suppose that the cattle in that age, from the defects in husbandry, were not so large as they are at present in England, we may compute that money was then near ten times of greater value. A horse was valued at about thirty-six shillings of our money, or thirty Saxon shillings;[***] a mare a third less. A man at three pounds.[****] The board-wages of a child the first year was eight shillings, together with a cow’s pasture in summer, and an ox’s in winter.[*****] William of Malmsbury mentions it as a remarkably high price that William Rufus gave fifteen marks for a horse, or about thirty pounds of our present money.[******] Between the years 900 and 1000, Ednoth bought a hide of land for about one hundred and eighteen shillings of present money.[*******] This was little more than a shilling an acre, which indeed appears to have been the usual price, as we may learn from other accounts.[********] A palfrey was sold for twelve shillings about the year 966.[*********] The value of an ox in King Ethel ed’s[** word?] time was between seven and eight shillings; a cow about six shillings.[*********] Gervas of Tilbury says, that in Henry I’s time, bread which would suffice a hundred men for a day was rated at three shillings, or a shilling of that age: for it is thought that soon after the conquest a pound sterling was divided into twenty shillings. A sheep was rated at a shilling, and so of other things in proportion. In Athelstan’s time, a ram was valued at a shilling, or fourpence Saxon.[**********] The tenants of Shireburn were obliged, at their choice, to pay either sixpence or four hens.[***********]
[* LL. Inse, sect. 69.]
[** Wilkins, p. 126.
[*** LL. Inse, sect. 38.]
[**** Hist. Eliens. p. 471]
[****** Wilkins, p. 66.]
[******* Wilkins, p. 126.]
[******** Page 121.]
[********* Hist. Eliens. p. 473.]
[********** Wilkins, p. 126.]
[*********** Monast. Anglie. vol. ii. p. 528.]
About 1232, the abbot of St. Alban’s, going on a journey, hired seven handsome, stout horses; and agreed, if any of them died on the road, to pay the owner thirty shillings apiece of our present money.[*] It is to be remarked, that in all ancient times the raising of corn, especially wheat, being a species of manufactory, that commodity always bore a higher price, compared to cattle, than it does in our times.[**] The Saxon Chronicle tells us,[***] that in the reign of Edward the Confessor there was the most terrible famine ever known; insomuch that a quarter of wheat rose to sixty pennies, or fifteen shillings of our present money. Consequently, it was as dear as if it now cost seven pounds ten shillings. This much exceeds the great famine in the end of Queen Elizabeth, when a quarter of wheat was sold for four pounds. Money in this last period was nearly of the same value as in our time. These severe famines are a certain proof of bad husbandry.
[* M. Paris].
[** Fleetwood. p. 83, 94, 96. 98]
[*** Page 157.]
On the whole, there are three things to be considered, wherever a sum of money is mentioned in ancient times. First, the change of denomination, by which a pound has been reduced to the third part of its ancient weight in silver. Secondly, the change in value by the greater plenty of money, which has reduced the same weight of silver to ten times less value, compared to commodities; and consequently a pound sterling to the thirtieth part of the ancient value. Thirdly, the fewer people and less industry which were then to be found in every European kingdom. This circumstance made even the thirtieth part of the sum more difficult to levy, and caused any sum to have more than thirty times greater weight and influence, both abroad and at home, than in our times; in the same manner that a sum, a hundred thousand pounds, for instance, is at present more difficult to levy in a small state, such as Bavaria, and can produce greater effects on such a small community than on England. This last difference is not easy to be calculated; but, allowing that England has now six times more industry, and three times more people than it had at the conquest, and for some reigns after that period, we are upon that supposition to conceive, taking all circumstances together, every sum of money mentioned by historians, as if it were multiplied more than a hundred fold above a sum of the same denomination at present.
